Trust and Faith in the Feds?- Off-shoot from EAA/FAA Agreement

[Jim Rosenow]

The feds damn near killed me the other day (venting in progress....clear!!)

Taking off from our home field in the R182. Monitored 122.8 and made all the proper calls...nobody else on the freq. Called CAK for flight following just above 2000 feet, and the first thing they said was 'We're glad to hear you, we were worried' (paraphrased, not quoted).

Our response was basically, 'Huh?'. They explained that while we were climbing thru 2000 feet, our target merged with another a/c at the same altitude that was not talking to them (not required to, by the way). We never saw the other a/c. How am I putting this near-miss on the feds?

We purchased both a Garmin 796 and an Android tablet to put on our yokes that display the traffic thru our GDL39 (process known as passive ADSB). According to the Garmin folks we talked to after the incident, the feds have limited the ADSB service that would have allowed us to see the traffic, so only those a/c that have active ADSB-out can see it. Instead of seeing what CAK saw on their own scopes and avoiding the conflict, we were fat, dumb, happy, and almost died. I've been told unoffically the FAA did this to urge early compliance with the 2020 adsb-out mandate. What they have actually done is drastically reduce the safety of everyone who flies.

To be specific..I am not bashing FAA employees in general. The guys at CAK are friends..a couple even flip pancakes with us at our local fly-in. I'm bashing an asinine sytem that could easily have made me dead...I take exception to that. So...I'm not big on FAA trust and faith right now. Oh...how's this for irony...we were flying over to talk to the dealer about why we weren't seeing traffic. :-)

End of rant...thanks for listening!

Jim

[MEdwards]

There was a similar rant, with similar histrionics, submitted to petitions.whitehouse.gov a year or so ago. I could not find it today, I guess it has fallen off the bottom of the list.

I fail to see how the FAA almost killed you by providing a really neat new capability that you are not currently in a position to take advantage of. If the FAA had never developed ADS-B, that same plane would have been in that same place at that same time and, yes, you might have died. It is not the existence or even the design of the ADS-B system that could easily have made you dead.

The only way they might have drastically reduced your safety is by lulling you into such a sense of security that you quit looking out the window. And that would not have happened if you'd read the user's guide for the Garmin GDL39 unit. Read Section 4.4 again, including the paragraph next to the big red explanation point. The similar warnings in my ADS-B receiver's manual are more explicit and explanatory. Every ADS-B receiver vendor I talked to at Oshkosh repeated incessantly the warning: Without ADS-B Out onboard you only get part, perhaps none, of the the traffic in your vicinity. I consider that very well known information. If you missed it, or didn't understand it, well, you missed it.

That said, certainly there are problems. I think the FAA did us a giant disservice by making ADS-B so bloody complicated. Starting with the stupid name, it's difficult to understand the details, the acronyms, and even the warnings, if they aren't boiled down into simple sentences. And simple sentences never convey the whole story. It takes a lot of research to figure out how it works and how you can use it.

Also, the B in ADS-B stands for Broadcast, right? So why don't they broadcast traffic instead of only sending it to aircraft who ask for it? I wish they did (but I don't think they're trying to kill me because they didn't). I've heard it's bandwidth issues, but if that's true, what are they going to do when "everybody" asks for it after 2020?

Garmin hasn't helped a bit by making the interfaces between GPS units and ADS-B transmitters complicated and seemingly always incompatible. I would like to install ADS-B Out, but currently a certified installation is way too expensive, and the non-certified units are clumsy and probably will never be certified. I think ADS-B Out will become more straightforward and affordable as the 2020 deadline approaches, but I don't have a lot of confidence in that prediction. I also predict the 2020 deadline will be delayed.

Anyway, I like ADS-B. I get free weather and very limited traffic that I fully understand I can't really rely on. Yet.

Mike E

[TedK]

"I'm sorry, only the first class passengers rate a life preserver. You Steerage passengers will have to paddle to stay afloat."

The FAA used to have two missions, the promotion of aviation and aviation safety. Now their mission is safety. I don't see how this cockamamie decision makes aviation any safer.

[Jim Rosenow]

Mike,

First off, I'm not happy with your conclusion we were not looking out the window. Between us my wife and I have over 70 years of flying experience, and that's the absolute priority for both of us, especially from takeoff until we're 'radar contact'. We were apparently not in a position to observe the other aircraft.

As I understand it, the actual terminology for what's turned off is ADS-R (re-broadcast). It is CAPABLE of mirroring what the controller sees to all the aircraft in the area that have an ADSB-in unit (passive or active). I think we can agree that if the FAA had left it turned on, there would have been ample warning to avoid any conflict (after all, CAK watched the whole thing).

To be fair here's your quote from section 4.4 of the manual. "THE GDL39 is an aid for visually acquiring nearby traffic. It should never be assumed that the GDL39 is providing complete information about the traffic in the area".

Section 4.4 continues..quoting now from the one in my hand, "Traffic can be received directly from an aircraft with an ADS-B receiver or from an FAA ground station. The FAA ground station will broadcast traffic that is tracked via radar and is called TIS-B traffic." Sounds like they're saying we should see what CAK saw, but the FAA turned it off so we didn't. Did the FAA almost kill us?...probably not, but they certainly had the capability to prevent what happened, and chose not to exercise it. Isn't part of their purview safety? Just sayin...

I don't mind being 'called' for not knowing we were not getting full traffic coverage. We're in good company. The people who installed the 796 (Garmin dealer) didn't know it. When the dealer called Garmin, their first response was "update the software" (?). On a subsequent call we went thru 2 people at Garmin before we talked to one who was conversant enough with it to explain why we weren't getting the traffic we 'should'. I agree with you it's WAY too complicated.

I also agree with you on the weather capability....it's great! Nice of the FAA to leave it turned on! ;-)

[WLIU]

Before the debate gets too heated, you may both be giving way to much credit to the equipment that the approach controllers have in front of them. The display does not show resolution to what your GPS will. They see positions accurate to only 100's of feet and the airplane graphics cover 100's of feet of real estate on their screens. So while the controllers concern is nice, the traffic that they were concerned about likey passed a significant distance behind you and/or at an altitude that was actually non-conflicting. And for better or worse, factory airplanes do not make it easy to keep an eye at 6 o'clock and altitude encoders accuracy can be off 100'.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am of the opinion that the FAA simply can not manage a program to provide real services to the consumers of the services. They tell us what they will do and we either like it or do not buy the gear. I have yet to see gear that meets my needs so I am not buying any.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[Jim Rosenow]

Heated?....naaaahhhh!!!!

I agree with everything you've said, Wes! Been to approach and tower facilities, and seen their working stuff. That said, ball park info on traffic seems better than none.

Ted's post expresses exactly my view of the situation.

I also agree with much of what Mike said...even the histrionics part :-)

What ads-r / tis-b have the ability to provide is the same information we get from ATC during flight following, but includes that critical couple thousand feet after take-off (not at ALL locations of course, but we're just outside CLE class B).

When we bought the 796/GDL39 we were trying to put off the decision on full ADSB, but still wanted to use the safety net it provides...or has the potential to. We think that the regs, equipment, and probably implementation date will change before 2020, and aren't ready to fully commit to it. Plus the 796 is a full-of-info toy! Yes, we should have done more research. We also looked at the Zaon (since deceased), which would have provided traffic independently, and decided against it.

So...we're three grand into equipment, and for another $3500-$4K plus install, we could upgrade the transponder to adsb-out and get the traffic we should, in my opinion, already be getting.

Or...a friend has a working TCAS unit he pulled out of a Citation for a TCASII. The install would be a pain, but it's totally independent, and we will have the only switch that can turn it off. We'll see how that all goes.

Jim

[jethro99]

Seems this is more of a pilots failure to do his job of seeing and avoiding traffic than it is the FAA's failure. All too many rely upon "radar contact" to allow them to relax (or abandon) their responsibilities to see and avoid other aircraft. Hell, with TCAS, ADS-B, Radar, Flight Following, etc., etc., there may be no reason at all to even look outside the cockpit. Let the systems do the job so that I don't have to be concerned with others.

[Jim Rosenow]

Seems this is more of a pilots failure to do his job of seeing and avoiding traffic than it is the FAA's failure.

I can only come up with three possible conclusions that would support your first sentence...

1) You failed reading comprehension in school*
2) You have magical powers and were in the back seat of our airplane
3) You're deliberately jerkin' my chain

In any event, being an agreeable guy, I support your premise. Pilots eyes first place is outside the cockpit

Jim

* Quoted from my post..."First off, I'm not happy with your conclusion we were not looking out the window. Between us my wife and I have over 70 years of flying experience, and that's the absolute priority for both of us, especially from takeoff until we're 'radar contact'. We were apparently not in a position to observe the other aircraft."

[cub builder]

While see and avoid is the pilot's first responsibility, you can't always see the traffic. Jim's point is well taken that as an incentive to buy into the FAA's "nextgen" system, the FAA is withholding traffic information that could assist the pilot in locating and avoiding other traffic. The point is well taken, but overstated when you say the Feds nearly killed you.

Unfortunately, it will take a few collisions with dead bodies and their "marketing scheme" blamed before anything will be done about it. And often times it has to include a plane load of people as you killing yourself isn't really all that important to the feds. It only becomes important when it's on the national news that they were withholding flight information that could have helped avoid killing a plane load of people. If you want to fix the problem, you'll have to have get one of the national news agencies interested enough to do something like a "60 Minutes" segment about the "FAA withholding flight safety data". Until it's national news, they don't care. Just be careful as something like that could backfire into a mandate that we all buy ADS-B out sooner and have it apply to more airspace than currently planned.

-CubBuilder

[WLIU]

"what's turned off is ADS-R (re-broadcast)"

So for anyone going to Oshkosh this summer, here is a question for you to vocalize at the "Meet The Administrator" session. "Why is the FAA intentionally holding back the ADS-R broadcast when the facilities are able to broadcast the data, the equipment in our airplanes can display that data, and broadcasting the data would improve aviation safety?" Please ask LOUDLY.

And remember, the FAA is not happy until you are not happy.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[MEdwards]

Hi, Jim. I agree, no heat here. First off, rereading I see I did indeed insult you by saying you didn't look out the window (although that was not exactly my intent). I was trying to make a point, but I made it at your expense. I apologize for that. In your first msg you said you didn't see it, which to me implies you were looking. Wes is right of course, the other a/c could have been almost anywhere. I've missed seeing even called traffic many times.

Since you asked around (with varying success) you now know what the deal is. For other readers, I'll quote the last bit of the section on traffic in the GDL39 user's manual: "The FAA ground station will only broadcast TIS-B traffic that is within ±15 NM and ±3500 feet of an aircraft with ADS-B Out. To get the full benefits of ADS-B traffic it is recommended that the aircraft be equipped with an ADS-B transmitter..." [...such as these fine products by Garmin!].

That's the "what." I researched a whole lot last night and I could not find the "why." TIS-B (which is the acronym that sends the traffic data) isn't something you just turn on/off with a switch like selective availability in early GPS days. It was designed from the start as a client/server relationship where you only get data if you ask for it. And you ask for it via ADS-B Out. I'm pretty sure the reason is bandwidth limitations. I can visualize capacity problems with broadcasting every radar target within (say) 50 miles of an ADS-B tower, but I don't have any numbers to back that up. As an engineer I would like to believe the design was based on rational engineering factors, not on the FAA as Evil Incarnate. But I could not find on the internet any discussion of the design rationale. I'm still looking.

[Jim Rosenow]

Hi, Wes

I think your quote is from me, and it's a term I've heard used. I'm reading a wikipedia article....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADS-B

...as we speak, and they're calling it TIS-B instead. Not sure who authored the article, and as noted at the top there may be some issues with it. There's a lot out there to be read on the subject.

I hope someone starts asking these questions at Sun n Fun!

Jim

[MEdwards]

"what's turned off is ADS-R (re-broadcast)" So for anyone going to Oshkosh this summer, here is a question for you to vocalize at the "Meet The Administrator" session. "Why is the FAA intentionally holding back the ADS-R ...Well, if you're going to ask loudly, then let's make sure we ask accurately, so they can't dodge the question.

What's "turned off" is TIS-B. Traffic Information Service-Broadcast. ADS-R is something different: There are two ADS-B frequencies. Some ADS-B receivers operate on only one of them. ADS-R is having the ground station rebroadcast on one frequency an ADS-B message originally transmitted on the other, so everybody receives it. It actually has nothing to do with TIS-B.

As stated in another msg, I would argue that it isn't "turned off." I don't think there's a switch. I think it was designed that way. Make them justify that design, which almost everybody would agree isn't in the best interests of safety.

[Jim Rosenow]

Mike,

First, thanks for the apology. Perhaps I should have stated more clearly in the initial post that we were heads-up. After all these years, it's just second-nature for us, to the point we make a verbal call when going heads-down.

Second, it's great to have an engineer/sleuth on the case. Please keep the information coming. The 'why' would be very interesting to know. Please keep us in the loop on your findings.

For FAA engineers to design a system, even given engineering constraints, that 99% (my guess, based on the air-to-air contacts we see) of current users can't access seems.....lordy, how do I finish THAT sentence in polite company...guess I won't, fill in your own ending. Evil Incarnate?...naaah...substitute stupid maybe.

Sad thing is, there are a LOT of aircraft that will NEVER be able to access this system (as it stands). Properly done, with a passive ADSB receiver and a tablet computer, they would have been able to for less than a grand.

Thanks for your efforts, Mike

Jim

[MEdwards]

Impressive you and your wife have together a very professional attitude (and behavior) about your flying.

A thought about ADS-B traffic and "heads up/down." I have a hunch when more people have traffic displayed on their panel or GPS or iPad, it's going to get worse. A msg on one board said a guy who recently added traffic is now scared to fly because he sees how many planes are around him.

I had a similar experience, in a more minor way, flying around Phoenix to the south last fall. Even though I don't have ADS-B Out, I was picking up direct transmissions from equipped aircraft (perhaps trainers--I understand some of the big training outfits like those around Phoenix have already equipped with ADS-B Out)--or I suppose it could have been a TIS-B broadcast meant for somebody else, I don't know how to tell the difference.

Anyway, there were a whole lot of airplanes out there, right where I was headed. I was taken aback and spent more time than I should have figuring out their tracks and whether they really were above/below me, and what I should do about it. All that time I was staring at the iPad, not at the sky in front of me. Not good.

[Jim Rosenow]

Impressive you and your wife have together a very professional attitude (and behavior) about your flying.

Thank you, sir! My wife is a Citation Captain and we emulate as best we can her work cockpit environment. Now if we could just get that speed!

I just read an article that said ERAU has UAT ADS-B Out in all their aircraft..that's probably your source out Phoenix way.

Agreed...it might be scary to know how many near-misses we DIDN'T know about! Just ONE freaked us out completely!

Keep us in the loop!...and I'm digging also.

Jim

[WLIU]

I guess that I do not "get" that folks who will zoom down the freeway at 80mph right next to another car or truck get really concerned when in the air they can observe another airplane within a mile of them. I understand wanting to be situationally aware, but there seems to be an undercurrent that suggests that the other pilots can't be trusted to hold up their end of the see and avoid. Pilots are much more organized, motivated, and aware than the average freeway driver. Anyone can drive on the freeway and you don't even have to have a medical.

The technology is great, but I will note that glass cockpits have not lived up to the advertising that they would greatly increase safety. We just see different accidents. So the next question is whether knowing that all of these other airplanes are around will help us avoid each other or not. The answer is unclear at this point.

In the interest of full disclosure, I work with computers and my observation is that integrating computers with people is a challenge that often does not produce the desired result. And I don't even work to a government contract....

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[MEdwards]

Wes, a lot of it is getting used to it. And I was not used to seeing that kind of display before that evening south of Phoenix.

I was fortunate to learn to fly at Santa Monica, back when it was a thriving airport. A great place to learn to fly. There was always somebody else in the pattern, planes would cut in front of you entering downwind, or fly their downwind on your wingtip, or turn base in front of you when you were on final, a jet turned base right across my downwind about a quarter mile ahead. You had to get used to these things, and you did.

[TedK]

And remember, the FAA is not happy until you are not happy.



Remind me again, what does the acronym FAA mean?

[WLIU]

"I think your quote is from me"

I have had an FAA Ops Inspector use that phrase. I think that it was a poor attempt at humor, but the actual origin of the phrase "We're not happy until you're not happy" is likely lost in the mists of history.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[MEdwards]

Not a lot of continuing interest in this issue on this board, but I did say I would investigate and report back. Bottom line is, I have been unable to find an engineering analysis that led to the restricted distribution of TIS-B traffic data. But, I have talked to several knowledgeable technical people including a guy named John Collins who is an expert on the subject. They assure me that the reason traffic is not broadcast to everybody with ADS-B In is that there is insufficient bandwidth to do so. It is not politics, coercion, meanness, or social engineering. It is practical engineering considerations.

I can believe this when I hear that the 1090 MHz band is shared by transponders, surveillance radars, TCAS, ADS-B, and other services. I’m told it is already nearly oversubscribed in busy airspace like the LA Basin. That apparently is the reason the FAA opted to go with a second ADS-B frequency, 978 MHz in addition. That band is less congested, but 20% of it is already occupied by FIS-B weather data, which is broadcast to everybody. When you think about it, yes, there is a whole lot of weather data to be broadcast, but its repetition rate is on the order of minutes. By contrast, the repetition rate for traffic data is on the order of 5-10 seconds. You can do your own assumptions and calculations (I couldn’t find the “official” ones), but when I do that I come out with too many messages, not enough bandwidth.

Another reason I can believe the bandwidth limitation answer is all the other things the ADS-B design does to reduce the amount of data that has to be broadcast. Most ADS-B ground stations broadcast into geographic sectors (usually four quadrants, but the one at my home field looks like it might be only two or three). So traffic data is broadcast in a particular sector only if there’s an aircraft with an ADS-B Out transmitter in that sector that indicates it wants to receive the data. Further, they only broadcast on one frequency or the other, not both, and the frequency selected is the one that the aircraft’s ADS-B Out transmitter says the aircraft is in a position to receive. Additionally, the other service, ADS-R that retransmits on the other frequency, only does so if an aircraft needs it, and the way you say you need it is, again, by the ADS-B Out transmitter saying what frequency the aircraft needs to receive.

Near as I can tell, the conspiracy theory that the FAA was intentionally withholding traffic data originated with an editorial by Flying Magazine editor Robert Goyer a couple years ago. He called it “social engineering” and said that if only the FAA had “left well enough alone” traffic would have been broadcast to everybody. That’s just completely false. A broadcast to everybody would have required a completely different design. Of course it could be done. Lots of things can be done for enough money. I suppose the FAA could have broadcast TV pictures of controllers’ radar screens to aircraft in 1965. They didn’t, but not because they were mean and evil and wanted to shut down General Aviation.

[Joe LaMantia]

I just stumbled onto this thread and the discussion confirms the thoughts of a couple of older members of our flying club. "ADS-B is complicated, expensive, and will be late in coming." We have one IFR rated aircraft but no "current" IFR pilots so we're strictly VFR guys using our original issue "E-1" eyeballs to stay clear of traffic. I see more traffic around the local $100 hamburger runway then I see flying in or around Chicago's Class B, but I do stay low and south or west of the outer ring. I do use flight following when I can get it, and the traffic they call out is almost always higher which was explained earlier in this thread. While the guys at Garmin are busy providing and marketing products most of us "little" guys will continue to sit on the fence and wait until 2020 or later b/4 spending $$$. I did buy a mini IPad last year and find it useful, maybe I'll spend a few more $$ to upgrade my subscription for weather depiction but that might be overkill given the few cross-country hours/year I fly. The opening statement of this thread indicated that the pilot(s) we're notified by the controller of the "near miss" and if the controller had just given them a "squawk code" without the comment, this thread would not have been posted. I'm glad it was posted, since I got a lot of good information regarding the current status of ADS-B and the FAA's "implementation" progress(?).

Joe
:cool:

[Jim Rosenow]

Not a lot of continuing interest in this issue on this board, but I did say I would investigate and report back.

Hi, Mike...thanks for the info. I guess the interesting part to see will be in 2020 when 'everybody' IS requesting the info, and how the system handles it then.

Currently, it's quite under-used. We're not ADSB-out, but ADSB-in on two devices (which means we pretty much see just a/c that have ADSB-out). We just returned from a two-week trip out your way (highly recommend the Pima Air & Space museum!), which included wandering around some in the LA basin. ERAU at Prescott and the Air Force Academy at Colorado Springs were hot-beds of 'equipped'-aircraft, but that was pretty much it. I would guess maybe 40-50 other airplanes on the entire 4K+ mile trip, including the LA area. I agree with you it was unnerving watching 30 or so AF###### (that's not cussing...it's the way the AF trainers display on ADSB) targets in a 20 mile diameter :-)

Jim

[MEdwards]

....thanks for the info. I guess the interesting part to see will be in 2020 when 'everybody' IS requesting the info, and how the system handles it then.I wondered about that in an earlier post. I found the answer is a bit counter-intuitive.

TIS-B only "broadcasts" traffic seen on radar that is NOT ADS-B Out equipped. It filters out the ADS-B Out traffic, because you will be receiving their positions directly from them. By 2020 "theoretically" almost all aircraft will have ADS-B Out, so the TIS-B bandwidth usage should decrease quite a lot. Might work.

Mike E